South Carolina Mother and Son Murdered

[Bluebirdbluebell]

3 hours ago, TN-peach said:

Is the defense really going to argue that Paul killed Maggie and then himself?! That is the implication of the cross-examination of the ME. 

That seems GROSS! But everyone deserves a defense no matter how icky it might be but I don't know if the jury will agree it.  I think the defense risks offending the jury with this theory.  It is a better option that a third party did it, in my opinion. 

That is awesome.  I started going down the rabbit hole of forensics when I started reading Radley Balko.  His articles, especially about the Mississippi coroner and the bite analyst, were very interesting.  And down the rabbit hole I fell. 

This is where I thought the defense would go. Paul Murdaugh is known as a volatile and troubled young man, and he would be likely a scapegoat. However it ruins the defense's narrative of a happy family, and gives Alex motive to kill his son if he thought the kid was capable of killing Maggie.

Most of these violent crimes (of the Murdaughs) seem spur of the moment imo and not premeditated or calculated. Alex may have been worried about money, but the guns were there and he may picked them up on impulse. Gloria's death seems like either she fell or she was hit on the head and then fell. It could be calculated, but it's also could be that people were fighting and it happened in the heat of the moment. Alex had run similar scams on people who weren't working for him. He may have seen an opportunity to benefit from her death, without planning it. 

If the defense wants 1st degree murder, then they will have to prove premeditation. Proving premeditation could be hard in case like this.. Maybe the prosecution should picked a lower charge that was easier to prove.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Bluebirdbluebell

[TN-peach]

Maggie's sister's testimony was very interesting.  She seems to think Alex is guilty.

I loved Dale. "that is not how I roll up the hose"

[ifosterkittens]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

I loved Dale. "that is not how I roll up the hose"

Dale was a hoot! When he didn't know the name of Rogan's dog (Cash) and said I don't know his name and just call him Twinkle Toes or Tapper Toes or something to that effect. When Dale was explaining how the rooster was taunting the dogs and Creighton said well the rooster got his!  

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

Maggie's sister's testimony was very interesting.  She seems to think Alex is guilty.

She surely does. Her testimony was evidence of that for sure, but also her prescence. If she didn't think he did it, they wouldn't call her. She wouldn't have cooperated. She thinks he did the damn thing. (Or, if she was really on Alex's side, they could have called her as a hostile witness but her testimony wouldn't have been worth doing that.) She was very cooperative with re-direct in a way that shows a lot of awareness of the legal situation. 

What we learned about Paul today was...heartshattering, and he's a hard guy to feel for. But for a child to be tracking down his dad's drug of choice and trying to get rid of them...that's a lot. It adds more possible context for conflict. 

[TN-peach]

14 hours ago, Antimony said:

She surely does. Her testimony was evidence of that for sure, but also her prescence. If she didn't think he did it, they wouldn't call her. She wouldn't have cooperated. She thinks he did the damn thing. (Or, if she was really on Alex's side, they could have called her as a hostile witness but her testimony wouldn't have been worth doing that.) She was very cooperative with re-direct in a way that shows a lot of awareness of the legal situation. 

What we learned about Paul today was...heartshattering, and he's a hard guy to feel for. But for a child to be tracking down his dad's drug of choice and trying to get rid of them...that's a lot. It adds more possible context for conflict. 

Right, not all victims of crimes are perfect.  Maggie and Paul are flawed but no one deserves what happened to them.  I would hate to speak for the Mallory Beach family but I doubt that was the "justice" they were wanting.  IF Alex killed them then I can't imagine Paul's thoughts for those few seconds between the two shots knowing that his father was trying killed to him.  And then poor Maggie seeing her husband killing her son and then coming for her.

[ifosterkittens]

Marian's (Maggie's sister) testimony was heartbreaking. Creighton had to establish the facts and he did. Maggie told Marian Alex called her and asked her to go to Moselle so they could together go visit his parents at Alameda because his father's prognosis had changed. Marian said Maggie was reluctant to go, and Marian encouraged her to go support her husband during this difficult time. It's important because Maggie knew Paul was going to be there. Maggie hadn't planned to go to Moselle, she only went because Alex asked. Marian was under the impression that Maggie and Alex would be visiting both of his parents at Alameda, so it seems Maggie did not know Alex's father was in the hospital. Marian's testimony seems to corroborate Blanca's testimony Maggie hadn't planned to go to Moselle that night and wasn't thrilled to have to go out there. 

If I'm reaching, please tell me, but when Jim was going over the sequence of events, he kept reiterating with Marian she told Maggie to go to Moselle to be with Alex. It felt to me like Jim was suggesting Marian was the one who sent Maggie to slaughter. Maybe Jim was trying to convey Marian had no hesitation to tell Maggie to support Alex, trying to establish Marian wasn't worried it was dangerous, but it felt like Jim subtly saying you told her to go there that night, almost as if Marian played a role in Maggie's death. I just wanted to give Marian a hug and say you did nothing wrong, you tried to support your sister. 

I had wondered about the pain pill addiction and if it was a convenient explanation for the missing money. Marian's testimony that Maggie called Paul the little detective because he was always making sure there were no pills in the house confirmed to me there was a pill addiction. What a terrible position for a child to be in. How could the defense argue a perfect family man knowing it was possible the financial crimes and his opioid addiction might come in? People are flawed, and struggling with addiction doesn't make someone bad, but surely doesn't fit the perfect family man mold. 

As far as the timeline Maggie talked to Marian at 7:48pm and Maggie arrives at Moselle at 8:17pm. Paul and Alex are already at Moselle when Maggie arrives. Alex puts down his phone at 8:09 and doesn't get it until 9:02. He calls Maggie's phone at 9:04 and 9:06, starts the car, calls her phone again at 9:06, texts her phone at 9:08 "going to check on M", at 9:10 we see the cell phone towers so likely moving off the property on the way to Alameda. This feels to me like trying to create an alibi but doing a crummy job of it. If Alex wanted Maggie to come to Moselle to visit his parents, why didn't he try to track Maggie down before leaving Moselle? Alex knows phone reception is spotty at Moselle so if he wanted Maggie to come with him why not drive by the kennels where it is likely she could be if she isn't in the house? 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, ifosterkittens said:

If I'm reaching, please tell me, but when Jim was going over the sequence of events, he kept reiterating with Marian she told Maggie to go to Moselle to be with Alex. It felt to me like Jim was suggesting Marian was the one who sent Maggie to slaughter. Maybe Jim was trying to convey Marian had no hesitation to tell Maggie to support Alex, trying to establish Marian wasn't worried it was dangerous, but it felt like Jim subtly saying you told her to go there that night, almost as if Marian played a role in Maggie's death. I just wanted to give Marian a hug and say you did nothing wrong, you tried to support your sister. 

This was weird but I think it served a few purposes;

a) Marian has to convince Maggie. Shows Maggie didn't want to see her husband despite the level of family circumstances. How much would you have to dislike your husband and his muggy hunting property to not go see him when his father and mother are very poorly?  They're trying to counter the "perfect family" character evidence that Harpootlian et al. have inexplicably tried to introduce for...some reason. 
b) Marian crying is good for the prosecution. They've made her a very sympathetic witness. Could be strategic. Could even be agreed  upon. They've probably practiced that testimony and she has likely been in communication with the prosecution. She's very aware of what is going on legally so I bet they had this planned. 

I think it also goes to what you note -- Marian wasn't hestitant, which puts her later suspicions against Alex (planned in questioning) in sharper contrast. 

[hoipolloi]

I check in on the Reddit Murdaugh subs for recaps & comments. This post on Alex being a family annihilator makes some sense although there still doesn't seem to be a clearcut motive.

Quote

I wish the prosecution would bring in an expert to testify on the psychological profile of family annihilators because I’ve always felt like this was a better explanation of AM’s motive. This case seems so bizarre because it appears that AM didn’t stand to gain much by killing both Maggie and Paul (There was no life insurance on them, etc) UNTIL you look at the psychological profile of a family Annihilator.

 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, hoipolloi said:

I check in on the Reddit Murdaugh subs for recaps & comments. This post on Alex being a family annihilator makes some sense although there still doesn't seem to be a clearcut motive.

 

I also think he fits this profile, but I am not sure it's admissible. It feels...dicey. Even with an expert, it is applying conclusions about a wider population to a singular person, which feels like it would be prejuidicial. I think the only way to get something close in would be to get a psych eval of Murdaugh himself in, but I'm not sure what that would be like. The Defense would have to open the door.

I'm not sure what case law says about it and I can't recall a case with a profiler as an expert witness off the top of my head. 

[ifosterkittens]

1 hour ago, hoipolloi said:

This case seems so bizarre because it appears that AM didn’t stand to gain much by killing both Maggie and Paul (There was no life insurance on them, etc) UNTIL you look at the psychological profile of a family Annihilator.

This is an interesting concept, but I disagree that Alex didn't have much to gain by killing Paul and Maggie. I would argue he had everything to gain. 

June 7, 2021 at that time the only known issues are 1. Paul's criminal charges 2. Alex, Maggie and Buster's civil lawsuit 3. that day Jeannie confronted Alex over missing $792,000. None of Alex's other financial crimes were on the radar. 

Results of Paul and Maggie being murdered by a vigilante 1. Paul's criminal charges dropped- that's guaranteed. 2. The civil lawsuit would eventually be dismissed. Mark Tinsley said Alex and Buster would have been dropped from the civil lawsuit if they believed Maggie and Paul were killed by a vigilante. This is a huge gamble because it isn't guaranteed, but Alex would have had a better understanding than most this was a very likely outcome. If the civil lawsuit isn't dropped, he leans hard into the vigilante killed my wife and son and that would probably have resulted in a smaller settlement he would have had to pay out. 3. Alex did at some point replace the $792,000 (well he put in 600,000, Chris Wilson covered the remaining 192,000). 

I think Alex figured he could explain away the missing $792,000 with no repercussions, and I don't think it ever occurred to him Jeannie would continue looking into the finances. 

Killing Maggie solved a lot of potential problems for Alex. With Maggie dead she can't file for divorce, she can't share her concerns about finances with anyone, anything about Gloria Satterfield, all the secrets she knows die with her. All property and assets in Maggie's name will in time come to Alex. Once the civil lawsuit was dropped all of that came to him and his money issues are solved. 

September 3, 2021 Alex's law firm call in for a sit down, they tell him we know you stole money; we are going to report you, we are going to hire people to investigate everything, resign this moment you are done. 

September 4, 2021 (late morning?) Chris Wilson tracks Alex down at Alameda, Chris gets a promissory note for the $192,000. Alex tells Chris he has a pain pill addiction, the money is gone, he's screwed everything up- the world is crumbling under Alex's feet. 

September 4, 2021 afternoon Alex is "shot". If things had gone as planned Alex would have looked like another victim of the vigilante. Alex would be dead and not have to be held accountable for his financial crimes. Alex's financial crimes would have been discovered, but Alex would dead, a target of a vigilante, and the law firm wouldn't want to make the financial crimes public so it wouldn't be as big a story. Maybe Alex thought Buster would get his life insurance policy (Mark Tinsley said Alex didn't have one, we haven't seen proof he did have one). I think it was less about the money for Buster and more Alex didn't want to face the music. Alex knew he couldn't get away with the financial crimes. 

Within maybe 12 hours, maybe less of Jeannie confronting Alex about the missing $792,000 Paul and Maggie are murdered. Within maybe 24 hours of being confronted by the law firm Alex has himself shot on the side of the road. He had an immediate problem and attempted to solve it. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by ifosterkittens
More on Chris Wilson interaction

[TN-peach]

The SLED agent on the stand yesterday was torn up on cross examination.  That very well could doom the State's case.  It highlighted the State's inept investigation. Lying to the Grand Jury looks really, really, really bad because it is bad.  YIKES!

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, TN-peach said:

The SLED agent on the stand yesterday was torn up on cross examination.

It's so obvious that SLED gave AM & the Murdaughs the kid glove treatment. That alone imperils any testimony SLED agents might give. Itʻs a minefield for the prosecution.

[Antimony]

 

Okay, okay, today's testimony is very much about the angle of the shot but...I made a scale drawing based on my theory and dowel-rod demos with my husband. The main crux being that the gun was on the ground during the shot. Here's what we got. (Edit: Only valid for the second shot, because we're learning now again that the first shot was straight on...they are not making this clear.)

Spoiler

Edited February 16, 2023 by Antimony

[ifosterkittens]

1 hour ago, hoipolloi said:

It's so obvious that SLED gave AM & the Murdaughs the kid glove treatment. That alone imperils any testimony SLED agents might give. Itʻs a minefield for the prosecution.

Absolutely! I agree with the defense that SLED was sloppy. I vehemently disagree with the defense that SLED made a rush to judgement. SLED had a search warrant for Moselle but didn't bother executing it- the deference giving to the Murdaughs blows my mind. I think SLED was discredited enough yesterday you can't really trust anything being said by them, and if that's the witness who was supposed to tie most of the case together the jury might not even be listening. 

[Grandma D]

6 hours ago, Antimony said:

 

Okay, okay, today's testimony is very much about the angle of the shot but...I made a scale drawing based on my theory and dowel-rod demos with my husband. The main crux being that the gun was on the ground during the shot. Here's what we got. (Edit: Only valid for the second shot, because we're learning now again that the first shot was straight on...they are not making this clear.)

  Hide contents

So what are your thoughts?'the shooter fell down?

[Antimony]

2 hours ago, Grandma D said:

So what are your thoughts?'the shooter fell down?

Some people have speculated that does follow the trajectory. An initial first shot (roughly parallel with the ground), and then a stumbling back. The second shot is supposedly from a greater distance, and at this strange angle, suggesting that the shooter shot and stumbled back. Probably not from recoil, but maybe to assess the first shot, or put distance between themselves in the victim.

The second option that fits this, and was my first thouhgt, is that it was a shot from a kneeling or crouched position, which is pretty common for bird hunting (and the type of a rifle in question is used for bird hunting). But it could also be a total stumble and then shot from a sitting down, legs splayed, as if somebody fell on their ass.

I also don't have the rifle or barrel length for this gun because it's missing, so I just used an estimate. That issue came up in court today. 

Harpoot spent the day trying to make this angle look as absurd as possible while simultaneously alluding to suicide (which the evidence doesn't support) and it's unclear to me why this is such an issue for him. Ultimately, the angle and approximate distance doesn't matter for the defense's case, especially if they want to suggest it was somebody else familiar to the family (such as the groundskeeper or Cousin Eddie, both of which would have been able to get close to Paul or Maggie). 

[TN-peach]

I think for the second shot to Paul the shooter was either kneeling or had fallen over which made the angle so high.  I believe it would be a HUGE stretch of a credibility that the two wounds were self-inflicted or that they were made by someone Paul didn't know. 

There is no one way he could lift the gun a second time after being shot in the shoulder and hold it far enough out to get a shot off. 

21 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

It's so obvious that SLED gave AM & the Murdaughs the kid glove treatment. That alone imperils any testimony SLED agents might give. Itʻs a minefield for the prosecution.

ABSOLUTELY.  SLED and every other LEO gave him and the family kid glove treatment.  With this treatment the argument that there was a "rush to judgment" is laughable. 

Part of me thinks that the SLED agents should have just said "yes we didn't search the house because it was full of powerful attorneys and Murtaughs that can get me fired/demoted if I piss them off."

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

Part of me thinks that the SLED agents should have just said "yes we didn't search the house because it was full of powerful attorneys and Murtaughs that can get me fired/demoted if I piss them off."

I know. That would resonate with a jury. 

Apparently, the SLED investigator, Dr. Kinsey, did a great job on the stand explaining the crime scenes. Iʻd like to find a video or transcript of his testimony. Twitterati seem to think that his testimony really helped the prosecutionʻs case.

Note to self: Don't commit crimes using a vehicle with OnStar data.

[Antimony]

10 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

I know. That would resonate with a jury. 

Apparently, the SLED investigator, Dr. Kinsey, did a great job on the stand explaining the crime scenes. Iʻd like to find a video or transcript of his testimony. Twitterati seem to think that his testimony really helped the prosecutionʻs case.

Note to self: Don't commit crimes using a vehicle with OnStar data.

Tinsey had a lot of Southern Charm that probably played well. Law & Crime and Court TV should have logs, but I also use Emily D Baker because I like having extra commentary.

Today's timeline could cut either way, but it's tight. 15-some seconds is a short time to discover two bodies and check their pulses as claimed and call 911, but 15 minutes is also a short time to clean oneself up and stash guns. But, today's timeline confirms Ms Shelley's recollection, which makes her an even better witness than she already was. 

Apparently, in the Roadside Shooting Interview video, he apparently tells Law Enforcement that Ms. Barbara, Ms. Libby's Caretaker, is a supplier of pills. This seems unlikely but it always seemed strange to me that a person of Alex's personality was such a regular visitor of his sick parents. People can certainly contain multitudes but in my experience hospice really just...writes mroe scripts than a person in care might actually need. We had so much unchecked morphine and dilaudid when my dad was in hospice that nobody was tracking. I wouldnt be suprised at all if Alex was visiting partially to skim off the top of his mom or dad's pain meds and if I'm Ms. Barbara, am I saying anything? To Alex Murdaugh? I certainly am not. 

[hoipolloi]

14 minutes ago, Antimony said:

I wouldnt be suprised at all if Alex was visiting partially to skim off the top of his mom or dad's pain meds

This is quite possible. Apart from the stint in rehab after the fake suicide event, is there any other proof of AM's years-long addiction? 

[Antimony]

1 minute ago, hoipolloi said:

This is quite possible. Apart from the stint in rehab after the fake suicide event, is there any other proof of AM's years-long addiction? 

Marian's testimony. She testifies that Maggie's nickname for Paul was "Little Detective". When asked what this nickname refers to by prosecution, she tells them that it refers to the fact that Paul would seek out Alex's drug stashes and destroy/flush or otherwise hide them. 

Alex references this nickname in full in relation to Paul in one of his police interviews about the murders. 

[TN-peach]

4 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

This is quite possible. Apart from the stint in rehab after the fake suicide event, is there any other proof of AM's years-long addiction? 

During the timeline witness, a text from Paul to Alex came in saying (paraphrasing) "Hey dad mom wants to talk to you.  She found bags of pills in your computer bag." 

It is bad enough that my phone tracks everything but for sure now I will not get a car with OnStar.  But damn your phone tracks everything...

[hoipolloi]

It's behind a paywall, unfortunately, but the NYT has a decent summary of the case so far:

Quote

 

Still hanging over the trial is the question of whether Mr. Murdaugh himself will testify. After prosecutors rested, Mr. Murdaugh’s lawyers began questioning their first witness, the Colleton County coroner. They will continue to call witnesses next week.

With so many witnesses and so much technical data, jurors will have a large amount of evidence to sift through once deliberations begin. The jurors do not have notepads in the courtroom, so they will have to rely on their memories and the many exhibits that were entered into evidence, including a wealth of reports, maps and other items.

“How this case turns out may well be determined by the quality of the closing arguments,” said Jessica Roth, a professor of criminal law and evidence at Cardozo School of Law in New York and a former federal prosecutor. “How streamlined they are, how clear they are and how well they summarize the evidence and don’t get bogged down in the details.”

 

 

[ifosterkittens]

6 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Still hanging over the trial is the question of whether Mr. Murdaugh himself will testify.

I don't think Alex will testify because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose. If Alex testifies it is because he and he alone thinks it is a good idea. No way Dick or Jim think it's a good idea. One of the law tube lawyers (can't remember who) said the only reason you testify is if it is a self-defense case and this isn't self-defense. 

[TN-peach]

Alex testifying would open up a whole lot of questioning of his behavior and past statements.  This would not be good.